i really do think that the school needs to move out of lexington though. i don't mind the town all that much but i know that a lot of very qualified candidates probably choose other similarly-ranked schools due to the location. i know people try to play it off like the small-town feel is nice and all but most young adults don't wanna be in a place like that...

With all due respect (which for ANBUDOM = mad props), I completely disagree. Lexington, and the school's long tradition there, is part of what makes W&L such a unique institution. Many potential students and faculty don't give it a chance because of its remote location; that's their loss. A school in a more urban environment simply does not end up with the same sense of community, because students spend less time with one another as more outside activities compete for their attention. Lexington also provides freedom from distractions and traffic, scenic beauty, fresh air and loads of outdoor activities. For 3 years of law school, I think it's ideal, and that it's a great life experience, especially for lifelong city slickers.

I may be biased because I feel like W&L is uniquely suited to me personally, but I would hate to see it located anywhere else. The fact that it gets almost 200 OCI firms a year for a class size of 125-135 in a place this isolated is simply amazing. Move it elsewhere, and it becomes just another mid-tier-1 law school.

Actually, it's W&L's loss. Their big firm placement is not competitive with some of the other similarly-ranked schools, and despite the proximity, they have little pull in DC. I would take the atmosphere of W&L over any other similarly-ranked school, but the job statistics I've seen are troubling.

What the statistics don't take into account is the personal choice factor, and that is the problem with statistics.

Let's think this through. The people that are in W&L's LSAT/GPA wheelhouse presumably have the option to attend other similarly ranked schools in more urban settings, such as Notre Dame, GW, Emory, BC, or Fordham. But, they chose W&L. There may be many reasons for that choice, but a statistically significant portion of the class, myself included, chose W&L because of its setting. It stands to reason that that preference in location on the front end will also be factor on the back end when it comes to choosing one's employer. Many of my classmates, myself again included, chose firms in smaller markets or smaller firms in large markets over the large meatgrinding powerhouses. This was not caused by lack of options, but rather by personal choice. For example, three consecutive editors-in-chief of the law review went to Richmond, Roanoke, and a non-national Charlotte firm, respectively. Any of those three could have walked into any typical NY or DC biglaw shop and gotten an offer on the spot. But they chose something else. Now, to be sure, they are in each in great firms making great money for their market. Yet, for purposes of statistics, they are not counted as biglaw placement. This also effects our average starting salary figure - the top first year associate in Roanoke and the top first year associate in NY have the same basic resume, but one makes ~40k more than the other.

I think this phenomenon is actually good for those W&L students that do want to go to the major markets because they face less competition within their class. So, take notice of the statistics for whatever marginal value they have, but they don't tell anything close to the whole story.

What the statistics don't take into account is the personal choice factor, and that is the problem with statistics.

Let's think this through. The people that are in W&L's LSAT/GPA wheelhouse presumably have the option to attend other similarly ranked schools in more urban settings, such as Notre Dame, GW, Emory, BC, or Fordham. But, they chose W&L. There may be many reasons for that choice, but a statistically significant portion of the class, myself included, chose W&L because of its setting. It stands to reason that that preference in location on the front end will also be factor on the back end when it comes to choosing one's employer. Many of my classmates, myself again included, chose firms in smaller markets or smaller firms in large markets over the large meatgrinding powerhouses. This was not caused by lack of options, but rather by personal choice. For example, three consecutive editors-in-chief of the law review went to Richmond, Roanoke, and a non-national Charlotte firm, respectively. Any of those three could have walked into any typical NY or DC biglaw shop and gotten an offer on the spot. But they chose something else. Now, to be sure, they are in each in great firms making great money for their market. Yet, for purposes of statistics, they are not counted as biglaw placement. This also effects our average starting salary figure - the top first year associate in Roanoke and the top first year associate in NY have the same basic resume, but one makes ~40k more than the other.

I think this phenomenon is actually good for those W&L students that do want to go to the major markets because they face less competition within their class. So, take notice of the statistics for whatever marginal value they have, but they don't tell anything close to the whole story.

Absolutely, and thanks for explaining this yet again.

2 things:

1) At this point, the difference between Roanoke and NY is closer to 100K; although if compare COL-adjusted earnings per hour worked, I'd bet the farm that the Roanoke associate does better financially (although I'd also bet that the New York associate probably gets much more high-profile work).

2) Just to reinforce Lenny's point about where top W&L students go, the #1 student in the class of 2007 will be working in Pittsburgh.

What the statistics don't take into account is the personal choice factor, and that is the problem with statistics.

Let's think this through. The people that are in W&L's LSAT/GPA wheelhouse presumably have the option to attend other similarly ranked schools in more urban settings, such as Notre Dame, GW, Emory, BC, or Fordham. But, they chose W&L. There may be many reasons for that choice, but a statistically significant portion of the class, myself included, chose W&L because of its setting. It stands to reason that that preference in location on the front end will also be factor on the back end when it comes to choosing one's employer. Many of my classmates, myself again included, chose firms in smaller markets or smaller firms in large markets over the large meatgrinding powerhouses. This was not caused by lack of options, but rather by personal choice. For example, three consecutive editors-in-chief of the law review went to Richmond, Roanoke, and a non-national Charlotte firm, respectively. Any of those three could have walked into any typical NY or DC biglaw shop and gotten an offer on the spot. But they chose something else. Now, to be sure, they are in each in great firms making great money for their market. Yet, for purposes of statistics, they are not counted as biglaw placement. This also effects our average starting salary figure - the top first year associate in Roanoke and the top first year associate in NY have the same basic resume, but one makes ~40k more than the other.

I think this phenomenon is actually good for those W&L students that do want to go to the major markets because they face less competition within their class. So, take notice of the statistics for whatever marginal value they have, but they don't tell anything close to the whole story.

I disagree with this statement, with the exception of Emory. W&L - much like WUSTL - loads up their class with sub-3.1 splitters who have 167+ LSATs, and then sub 160 LSAT with high GPA students. These students do not get into BU, BC, Fordham (except PT) or ND. GW only started admitting high LSAT splitters this year, and will likely increase their numbers because of it. BU, BC, Fordham, and GW in previous years maintained much tighter LSAT and GPA ranges, similar to what Cornell does. Any student at W&L or WUSTL who actually has their median GPA & LSAT (3.6/166) would have been given a hefty scholarship to go there. A lot of students at W&L wouldn't have gotten into those urban schools, or if they did they would not have received scholarship money.

That being said, I agree there is likely a certain amount of self-selection toward smaller, southern markets. Additionally, I think the low tuition and living costs at W&L, coupled with their extremely generous scholarships, leave students with little enough debt that they don't feel pressured into choosing biglaw. However, even going by the posts of students who like W&L, the class rank required for DC biglaw seems quite a bit higher than at GW, and I think not having a large city nearby hurts students around the median or slightly above who are often able to get high paying jobs at Fordham, BC, BU, etc., because of the extremely strong ties these schools have in their home cities.

A few observations to add as an incoming student. I think you underestimate the ability to land a job in D.C. The fact that W&L is a small school means that no large city will be dominated by its grads, like Boston is with BC and BU. But, for example, while it is just one law firm, Williams and Connolly, a very selective firm in D.C. interviews at only 17 schools in the country - the T14, Vandy, Texas, and W&L. That may be for no particular reason, and it is only one example, but in my mind that speaks to the reputation of W&L among D.C. lawyers. While its "peer schools" may be BC, BU, Emory, GW, etc. in a numbers sense, I also think that W&L is often compared to a different set of schools by many applicants, including myself. My list of schools was comprised of mainly Southern schools, UVA, Vandy, W&L, W&M, Wake Forest, UNC, etc. Accepted to all but UVA, W&L was most appealing to me because of its tremendous reputation in the entire Southeast. I think if you compare it to the schools on the above list, it will rank favorably in most categories to all but UVA and Vanderbilt (though close in the South). Essentially my point is that comparing W&L to big city, Northern schools just doesn't make as much sense as comparing it to schools it truly competes against.

You can disagree all you want. I went there for three years and know my statement to be true. While you're right that W&L does admit some splitters (I was one myself, though I still got into Vandy and GW), W&L by no means has the corner on the market on that practice. A very large percentage of the people I knew at W&L, which is a span of five classes, had options at those schools I listed. They may not have had all of those schools as an option, but who knows where they applied?

What the statistics don't take into account is the personal choice factor, and that is the problem with statistics.

Let's think this through. The people that are in W&L's LSAT/GPA wheelhouse presumably have the option to attend other similarly ranked schools in more urban settings, such as Notre Dame, GW, Emory, BC, or Fordham. But, they chose W&L. There may be many reasons for that choice, but a statistically significant portion of the class, myself included, chose W&L because of its setting. It stands to reason that that preference in location on the front end will also be factor on the back end when it comes to choosing one's employer. Many of my classmates, myself again included, chose firms in smaller markets or smaller firms in large markets over the large meatgrinding powerhouses. This was not caused by lack of options, but rather by personal choice. For example, three consecutive editors-in-chief of the law review went to Richmond, Roanoke, and a non-national Charlotte firm, respectively. Any of those three could have walked into any typical NY or DC biglaw shop and gotten an offer on the spot. But they chose something else. Now, to be sure, they are in each in great firms making great money for their market. Yet, for purposes of statistics, they are not counted as biglaw placement. This also effects our average starting salary figure - the top first year associate in Roanoke and the top first year associate in NY have the same basic resume, but one makes ~40k more than the other.

I think this phenomenon is actually good for those W&L students that do want to go to the major markets because they face less competition within their class. So, take notice of the statistics for whatever marginal value they have, but they don't tell anything close to the whole story.

I disagree with this statement, with the exception of Emory. W&L - much like WUSTL - loads up their class with sub-3.1 splitters who have 167+ LSATs, and then sub 160 LSAT with high GPA students. These students do not get into BU, BC, Fordham (except PT) or ND. GW only started admitting high LSAT splitters this year, and will likely increase their numbers because of it. BU, BC, Fordham, and GW in previous years maintained much tighter LSAT and GPA ranges, similar to what Cornell does. Any student at W&L or WUSTL who actually has their median GPA & LSAT (3.6/166) would have been given a hefty scholarship to go there. A lot of students at W&L wouldn't have gotten into those urban schools, or if they did they would not have received scholarship money.

That being said, I agree there is likely a certain amount of self-selection toward smaller, southern markets. Additionally, I think the low tuition and living costs at W&L, coupled with their extremely generous scholarships, leave students with little enough debt that they don't feel pressured into choosing biglaw. However, even going by the posts of students who like W&L, the class rank required for DC biglaw seems quite a bit higher than at GW, and I think not having a large city nearby hurts students around the median or slightly above who are often able to get high paying jobs at Fordham, BC, BU, etc., because of the extremely strong ties these schools have in their home cities.

I am just wondering where this data comes from about intentionally picking splitters?

For last cycle, I just ran a search using the following parameters: GPA 2.5-3.1, LSAT 167-175, URM excluded. Here are the results:

W&L- 8 applied. 6 admitted, 1 withdrew before decision, 1 left as pending. Scholarship totals include 25k per year to a 2.8/173 student rejected outright by BC, ND and Emory, and waitlisted by Fordham. They also gave 13.5k per year to 2 admits, 9k per year to one, and 12k per year to another.